Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology Medknow Publications on behalf of Indian Association of Medical Microbiology ISSN: 0255-0857 EISSN: 1998-3646 Vol. 23, Num. 3, 2005, pp. 205-206

Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, Vol. 23, No. 3, July-September, 2005, pp. 205-206

Correspondence

Keratitis due to Colletotrichum dematium

Kaliamurthy J., Thomas P.A.

Department of Microbiology, Institute of Ophthalmology, Joseph Eye Hospital, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001, Tamil Nadu

Correspondence Address: Department of Microbiology, Institute of Ophthalmology, Joseph Eye Hospital, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001, Tamil Nadu, philipthomas@satyam.net.in

Date of Submission: 07-Mar-2005
Date of Acceptance: 21-May-2005

Code Number: mb05062

Dear Editor,

We read with great interest the case report by Mendiratta et al .[1] Concerning keratitis due to Colletotrichum dematium. Although two such studies[2],[3] have already been reported from India, we appreciate the authors′ interest in reporting the clinical features and microbiological aspects of another patient with Colletotrichum keratitis, particularly since this patient is from a different region of India. We would, however, like to offer a few comments:

1. It would have been very useful if further details on the clinical aspects, particularly the outcome of therapy, had been provided. What was the rationale for treating the patient with antibacterials, in conjunction with antifungals?

2. Was there any sepcial reason for the authors to use three slants of the same medium (Sabouraud dextrose agar) for inoculation of the corneal scrapings? Although slants are helpful to ensure that contamination is minimised, it is very difficult to determine the significance of primary growth appearing on slants. Hence, plate cultures are encouraged to assess whether the growth is from the inoculated specimen or is a contaminant (the corneal scrapes are inoculated in the form of "C" streaks on the plate; only growth on the ′C′ streaks is deemed significant).

3. The criteria followed to consider the growth to be significant are not stated.

4. The photographs are excellent. However, the legends do not correspond to the figures as they appear in the manuscript. For example, in Figure 1B, the reverse of the colony, as it appears in the photograph, does not exhibit a deep brown colour; in Figure 1C, the shape of the C.dematium conidia is not clearly visible in the picture. There are also a few spelling mistakes in the legends to the figures. The spelling of "appresorium" should be "appressorium", similarly the "conida" should be "conidia" and "acervullus" should be acervulus".

5. The authors have described the setae as being non-septate; however, line drawings of the setae, as they appear in a standard atlas of mycology by de Hoog and Guarro,[4] suggest that these are, in fact, septate.

6. There are some mistakes in the references cited.

a) In reference no.4 (Kaliamurthy et al) , the journal volume number should be 23 and not 21 .

b) We believe that the citation of reference no.6 is also wrong. The cover of the book ′Atlas of Clinical Fungi" clearly states ′edited by G.S. de Hoog and J.Guarro′ and not the other two names. Similarly, we believe that the authors have referred to the first edition of the book, which was published in 1995, and not to the second edition, which was published in 2000.

c) In reference no. 5 cited, fungus name should be " Colletotrichum dematium" and not "Colletotrichum dematius" (as printed).

REFERENCES

Copyright 2005 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology